Post by Glüc da Dhi on Aug 4, 2018 15:50:48 GMT -6
I think the The Birds of a Feather Flock Together Act is a bad idea. No matter how we assign people, provincial activity is not going to get major boost in the short term. Frankly we do not have enough citizens interested in provincial activity to divide them by eight. Sure if two friends who regularly hang out happen to be assigned to the same province we could decide to label that "provincial activity", but does it really change anything?
What we could have on the long term is a system where provinces are more meaningful. There are various advantages to a system where citizens in the same area are consistently assigned to the same province (unlike we have now). Not only does it make it easier for citizens in the same province who did not already know each other to meet or even organise provincial events, it is also more aesthetically appealing and meaningful instead of being merely senatorial voting clubs, it gives provinces a unique identity in a way that would not happen if all provinces consisted of similar mixes of people scattered around the world. Not giving people a choice prevents them from choosing provinces based on political reasons or everyone picking the cool province. And finally it allows us to settle on one system and develop it, so we no longer have the inevitable debates about catchment that derive from people in one area being assigned to different provinces or people in one province living on the opposite side of the world.
To create provinces that are in any way meaningful, we need to pick a system and go with it, allow it to run its course so it becomes part of our identity. Sadly what we have done instead is keep making changes to the rules and keep making exceptions, only to do away with them later. Only very recently we passed a few laws that were consistent with a single philosophy about what provinces should be rather than a muddied compromise nobody is happy with. Sadly, the OrgLaw prevented us from reassignng everyone who moves to a different catchment area, like what normally happens in about every country when you move a large distance, but the OrgLaw could (and in my view should) still be amended to fix that. But rather than stick with this idea, let it run its course so that provinces may become meaningful in the future, so we are not in the same situation in 30 years, with almost as many citizens being assigned to the wrong province and endless debates about what part of the world should be in what catchment areas, within a couple of years we are already talking about creating more exceptions. The best defense of this exceptions I've heard so far is that probably maybe not that many people will use it, which means there will also be little positive effect.
Two things that should be noted: a lot of Talossans currently live in the wrong catchment area. Furthermore catchments areas are really big, so that the vast majority of the acquintances people might have are in the same catchment area. This leads me to believe that this exception will be mainly used by people already living in the wrong catchment area so their acquintances can also be assigned to the wrong province. This wastes an opportunity for people who find it important to live in the same province as their friends (which is not everyone) to get their assignment changed, instead creating one more citizen, continuing the confusing current situation. Suppose a third person living in the same neighborhood becomes a Talossan and gets to know the other two already living there. This third person will now be in a different province. Because of this the proposal will more likely result in people living in the same area being assigned to different provinces MORE often rather than LESS often. Very little remains then of the idea that this will stimulate provincial activity.
Some more practical concerns: "acquintance". What does that even mean? I'm flattered the author said in the hopper thread that the SoS would be a good judge of this (note that there is no actual requirement for the SoS to be non-political), but the way I think I would have to interpret it is that if people ever said hi to each other on an internet chatroom they could already be considered acquintances. Suppose the citizens of another micronation decide to stop what they are doing and join Talossa. Could they now all end up in the same province even if they all lived in different countries because they knew each other online? It's a ridiculously broad term.
Secondly, wouldn't it be much more logical for the prospective to file the petition? The prospective needs to approve anyway. Now I worry it's only gonna take more time because after I receive such a petition I will still need to check with the prospective still before I can send the oath. Or what if I already sent the oath returned, then someone comes up with a reassignment petition just before the oath is received. Do I hold off on granting citizenship even though the person already said the oath?
What we could have on the long term is a system where provinces are more meaningful. There are various advantages to a system where citizens in the same area are consistently assigned to the same province (unlike we have now). Not only does it make it easier for citizens in the same province who did not already know each other to meet or even organise provincial events, it is also more aesthetically appealing and meaningful instead of being merely senatorial voting clubs, it gives provinces a unique identity in a way that would not happen if all provinces consisted of similar mixes of people scattered around the world. Not giving people a choice prevents them from choosing provinces based on political reasons or everyone picking the cool province. And finally it allows us to settle on one system and develop it, so we no longer have the inevitable debates about catchment that derive from people in one area being assigned to different provinces or people in one province living on the opposite side of the world.
To create provinces that are in any way meaningful, we need to pick a system and go with it, allow it to run its course so it becomes part of our identity. Sadly what we have done instead is keep making changes to the rules and keep making exceptions, only to do away with them later. Only very recently we passed a few laws that were consistent with a single philosophy about what provinces should be rather than a muddied compromise nobody is happy with. Sadly, the OrgLaw prevented us from reassignng everyone who moves to a different catchment area, like what normally happens in about every country when you move a large distance, but the OrgLaw could (and in my view should) still be amended to fix that. But rather than stick with this idea, let it run its course so that provinces may become meaningful in the future, so we are not in the same situation in 30 years, with almost as many citizens being assigned to the wrong province and endless debates about what part of the world should be in what catchment areas, within a couple of years we are already talking about creating more exceptions. The best defense of this exceptions I've heard so far is that probably maybe not that many people will use it, which means there will also be little positive effect.
Two things that should be noted: a lot of Talossans currently live in the wrong catchment area. Furthermore catchments areas are really big, so that the vast majority of the acquintances people might have are in the same catchment area. This leads me to believe that this exception will be mainly used by people already living in the wrong catchment area so their acquintances can also be assigned to the wrong province. This wastes an opportunity for people who find it important to live in the same province as their friends (which is not everyone) to get their assignment changed, instead creating one more citizen, continuing the confusing current situation. Suppose a third person living in the same neighborhood becomes a Talossan and gets to know the other two already living there. This third person will now be in a different province. Because of this the proposal will more likely result in people living in the same area being assigned to different provinces MORE often rather than LESS often. Very little remains then of the idea that this will stimulate provincial activity.
Some more practical concerns: "acquintance". What does that even mean? I'm flattered the author said in the hopper thread that the SoS would be a good judge of this (note that there is no actual requirement for the SoS to be non-political), but the way I think I would have to interpret it is that if people ever said hi to each other on an internet chatroom they could already be considered acquintances. Suppose the citizens of another micronation decide to stop what they are doing and join Talossa. Could they now all end up in the same province even if they all lived in different countries because they knew each other online? It's a ridiculously broad term.
Secondly, wouldn't it be much more logical for the prospective to file the petition? The prospective needs to approve anyway. Now I worry it's only gonna take more time because after I receive such a petition I will still need to check with the prospective still before I can send the oath. Or what if I already sent the oath returned, then someone comes up with a reassignment petition just before the oath is received. Do I hold off on granting citizenship even though the person already said the oath?